Risk factors for post-extubation dysphagia in ICU: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Post-extubation dysphagia is high in critically ill patients and is not easily recognized. This study aimed to identify risk factors for acquired swallowing disorders in the intensive care unit (ICU). METHODS: We have retrieved all relevant research published before August 2022 from PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library electronic databases. The studies were selected using inclusion and exclusion criteria. Two reviewers screened studies, extracted data, and independently evaluated the risk of bias. The quality of the study was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, and a meta-analysis was carried out with Cochrane Collaboration's Revman 5.3 software. RESULTS: A total of 15 studies were included. Age (odds ratio [OR] = 1.04), tracheal intubation time (OR = 1.61), APACHE II (OR = 1.04), and tracheostomy (OR = 3.75) were significant risk factors that contributed to post-extubation dysphagia in ICU. CONCLUSION: This study provides preliminary evidence that post-extraction dysphagia in ICU is associated with factors such as age, tracheal intubation time, APACHE II, and tracheostomy. The results of this research may improve clinician awareness, risk stratification, and prevention of post-extraction dysphagia in the ICU.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.024 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".